Is this leadership?

It was only a few months ago when virtually every conservative Christian leader in the country was quick to condemn embryonic stem-cell research. However, that seems like ancient history now. Since President Bush decided to use taxpayer dollars to fund medical research for "existing lines" of embryonic stem cells, those same conservative Christian leaders have suddenly become outspoken proponents for a procedure they once found reprehensible. What happened?

Did the principle change, or did our "leaders" change? If public funding for embryonic stem-cell research was wrong six months ago, how can it now be right? Either it is morally wrong to use human baby parts for medical research, or it is not. If it is not wrong today, it was not wrong six months ago. If it was wrong six months ago, however, it is still wrong today. Either our illustrious "leaders" are confused, or I am.

Thankfully, not every pro-lifer surrendered his principles in order to ingratiate himself with this unprincipled Republican White House. Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, "The trade-off he (Bush) has announced is morally unacceptable. It allows our nation's research enterprise to cultivate a disrespect for human life." Amen.

Congressman Bob Barr issued a statement saying, "I am disappointed with the president's decision to initiate federally-funded embryonic stem-cell research. It is morally and ethically wrong, and I will continue to oppose it." Thank you, Congressman Barr. At least there is one elected representative in the Republican Party that is not willing to compromise the sanctity of life issue.

The burning question, however, is where are the evangelical Christian leaders? Most either have joined Bush in surrendering the issue or have kept silent on the subject. In either case, they have given aid and comfort to the abortion culture.

When Bill Clinton was caught in acts of immorality, he selected liberal ministers to serve as "spiritual advisers" to assist his "recovery." Is there anyone who does not know that what those "advisers" actually did was to provide cover for him? So, how is that different from what these conservative ministers are now doing with Bush? Are they not providing cover for a morally-egregious decision? Are they not, therefore, enabling a compromising president to abandon a firmly-held, conservative principle? Again, I ask, is this leadership?

Frankly, I am ashamed of this president for making such a morally-deficient decision and I am ashamed of the conservative Christian leaders that have voiced their approbation for such a morally-deficient decision. It seems to me that if we had more prophets like Nathan, we might have more kings like David.